|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| NUDKIWI |
Posted - 11/18/2003 : 3:56:39 PM
I was at my club the other day soaking up the rays,when i began to think,and yes it did hurt.I began to wonder,is societies anti nudity stance a form of prejudice,and if it is do we have a case to practice nudity where ever we want covered by the human rights bill.
Isnt it prejudice to take a dislike to someone or to segregate them because of their beliefs or the way they dress or look.
Isnt it a form of aparthied to segregate beaches just because a certain group has a different dress code?
One dictionary meaning for the word prejudice is,"A judgement or opinion formed before the facts are known;esp.an unfavourable,irrational opinion."
I reckon this confirms my suspicions that it is a form of prejudice.Now,could it be used as a defence in a court of law,maybe.Do i have the courage to try it out,probably not.
Ah well back to the sunlounger,Pink Floyd in the headphones and a cold brew in my hand.
Naturally KIWI |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Spontanudity |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 06:37:30 AM
... May be protecting them from their lack of body acceptance and their misconceptions about social nudity... The truth can hurt! ;-)
Cheers,
Spontanudity
"Forever Naked"
http://groups.msn.com/YoungSydneyNaturists |
| melissastarr |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 06:34:03 AM
Perhaps protecting them from discomfort? That would actually be kind of nice of us since most of us do value our comfort. For example, look at the erection discussion- it makes people more comfortable if they don't see erections. I think it's important for nudists to realize that not everyone is comfortable with nudism and we should therefore not be overt when it would offend.
Melissa
____________________________________________________________________
My clothes have low self-esteem... they know they're not wanted. |
| Spontanudity |
Posted - 12/01/2003 : 05:39:33 AM
Kim,
Out of curiosity, what are we protecting them against?
Cheers,
Spontanudity
"Forever Naked"
http://groups.msn.com/YoungSydneyNaturists |
| Kimberly |
Posted - 11/30/2003 : 03:54:47 AM
I don't think it is some much "pre-judging" people that are nudists, as much as protecting people that do not want to be exposed to nudity.
Kim =^.^= |
| trucker |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 4:10:03 PM
prejudice,,to pre judge-there for i think or at least feel that,nudest are pre judged for how we live our lives,to my knowage what people don't understand they fear,,what they fear,, they pass judgement on,,therefore i feel if we teach people why we do what we do,, there will be less prejudice,.
smile it makes people wonder about ya |
| Spontanudity |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 10:54:43 AM
In Australia the government can't legislate against public nudity on a federal level due to the potential political fall out from the indigenous population. There are still some tribes that practise various forms of naturism. It would be dangerous ground to explore for any politican. Nudity in National Parks has never offended anybody so, the theory is don't attempt to fix what is not broken.
Cheers,
Spontanudity
"Forever Naked"
http://groups.msn.com/YoungSydneyNaturists |
| Cheri |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 10:13:10 AM
Spontanudity, In most or at least many, jurisdiction is transferred to the state or local municipality.
In North Carolina, it became illegal to enjoy nudity in the National Forrests in, I think, 1998. SC has the Congaree Swamp National Monument and that is too heavily populated to enjoy a relaxing nude walk/hike; it is a lovely spot though. SC has many state parks/wooded areas in which many hike or bike, but alas, clothed. One day, we'll cut paths in our 4 acres of woods and enjoy own own nude walks.
Hugs, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| Spontanudity |
Posted - 11/29/2003 : 06:05:30 AM
Cheri,
So National Parks in the US aren't governed by federal laws? In Australia, nudity is acceptable as there are not federal anti-nudity laws. Nudity in National Parks in Australia is quite acceptable and relatively common.
Cheers,
Spontanudity
"Forever Naked"
http://groups.msn.com/YoungSydneyNaturists |
| Cheri |
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 11:31:32 AM
airpowrd, They may be part of the National Seashore but not necessarily the most likely places to lobby for successful nudist venues. There are no loopholes. There was a lengthly discussion on this website several months ago; you might do a search for them using the site's search feature.
Regards, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| airpowrd |
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 10:50:47 AM
I would just like to point out that Gunnison Beach in NJ, Playalinda and Apollo Beach in Florida are all part of the National Park System. I was under the impression that National Parks were the most likely places to successfully lobby for nudist facilities due to loopholes in Federal statutes. I am not familiar enough to be certain of this though.
air |
| Cheri |
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 10:00:23 AM
Spontanudity, National parks is out for the most part in the US.
:) Hugs, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| Spontanudity |
Posted - 11/25/2003 : 08:49:49 AM
StuffedTiger,
I wonder if including specific areas where nudity may be acceptable should be included as motivation is difficult to determine. Can you think of all the legitimate places a naturist would conduct their activity?
I'm thinking beaches, privately owned and designated naturist resorts, national parks and private premises. Are there likely to be any others?
Cheers,
Spontanudity
"Forever Naked"
http://groups.msn.com/YoungSydneyNaturists |
| NUDKIWI |
Posted - 11/24/2003 : 1:40:28 PM
Sponta,
The nudity law over here is probably much the same as over there,you are generally not allowed to expose genital area on beach though topless is o.k. and legal.However if a beach has a history of nudity on it nudism is permitted and there has been cases of this argument standing up in court at a place called Pohutakawa Bay on Aucklands North Shore,a school group stumbled on a naturist at the beach and complained and he was taken to court.The case was thrown out as this beach has been a well known nudist beach for a long time.Even if you are caught naked elsewhere it has to be proved that the nudity is inappropriate or offensive and as any lawyer can see this is a big loophole,you could argue that it is appropriate to swim naked and how can simple nudity be offensive.However if there is any sexual behaviour involved it is a totally different story.
Naturally KIWI |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 11/24/2003 : 10:46:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Spontanudity
StuffedTiger,
Is your research academically based? ...snip...
No. Industrial. Primarily, I help create models of how things work for government, legal, financial, manufacturing and general business. I am usually one of the leaders in a larger team, and we are usually trying to solve a specific problem. It's just down and dirty gruntwork, far removed from academic glory. |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 11/24/2003 : 10:23:50 AM
This British Sexual Offenses Bill is said to be primarily intended to create protections for children. It also repeals the older Victorian laws in need of revision.
Here is the link:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/sentencing/sexualoffencesbill/
The current status they give is:
"What's new?
Sexual Offences Bill has Third Reading
The Sexual Offences Bill has had its Report stage and Third Reading in the House of Commons. The amendments that were proposed during the Commons stages of the Bill will now be considered by the Lords.
The Government publishes its reply to the Home Affairs Committee report
The Home Affairs Committee Fifth Report for the 2002 - 2003 session (June 2003) dealt with the Sexual Offences Bill. The Government recently published its reply to that report."
That link takes you to:
http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm59/5986/5986.pdf
The section dealing with Nudism currently reads:
" ...
Exposure
6. In our view, it is neither appropriate nor desirable to criminalise
legitimate activities, such as naturism. We therefore welcome the
removal of the ‘recklessness’ element from the offence of exposure
(Clause 68). We do not, however, accept that the offence should be
further restricted by a requirement for a sexual motive. In our view,
this may create more difficulties than it solves and runs of the risk
of undermining the very purpose of the offence, which is to protect
individuals from distressing — and potentially dangerous — types
of behaviour. (Paragraph 39)
We welcome the HAC’s support for the removal of the “recklessness”
element from the offence of exposure. We also agree that the offence
should not be further restricted by a requirement for a sexual motive, as
this would leave out of the scope of the offence exposure that is intended
to alarm or distress but where the motive was not sexual but was, for
example, an act of loutishness or aggression.
..."
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
